I'm preparing to runa game and I'm thinking of doing a crossover for all 3 books.. Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion, and Force and Destiny.

Has anybody run into problems in doing this?

It is not a problem so far. PCs of the same XP level have similar effectiveness. The Force and Destiny beta rules are changing so that is a bit of an issue.

Edit: Sorry, just posted in the wrong thread... the danger of tabbed browsing...

Aside from the frequency of the Beta errata updates, each game is meant to work seamlessly with the others. So there shouldn't be any problems. I ran adventure with characters from each, and it was fun & worked fine.

We've had great fun crossing over the systems so far. It adds a lot of diversity mechanically and in role play

I understand that having all three of Obligation, Duty, and Morality can cause some headaches and accounting problems. I would nominate the "central game" and have everyone base off of that. For example, if you are playing a Rebel cell with other elements joining, everyone has Duty, with only Force users having Morality and only Nerf Herders having Obligation.

I would also pick the single most usable group resource. Remember that a Force user's Master only benefits other Force users, whereas a ship or base of operations benefits everyone.

Another factor to consider is that you may have to play to the Force users re: conflict. Running a mass combat military game could cause any Morality using Force users to plummet to the Dark Side withing a few games, as would certain darker smuggling and underworld elements. This is the same kind of consideration as having a D&D Paladin or other very good character in a group with evil characters or in a campaign with themes of slavery or torture. Every assassination, blown up Tie fighter, stolen set of super weapon plans, and the like is going to cause a lot of conflict for a Force user, and that's something you're going to need to sort out as the GM before the dice start rolling, else the game will turn into a complete train wreck.

Another factor to consider is that you may have to play to the Force users re: conflict. Running a mass combat military game could cause any Morality using Force users to plummet to the Dark Side withing a few games, as would certain darker smuggling and underworld elements. This is the same kind of consideration as having a D&D Paladin or other very good character in a group with evil characters or in a campaign with themes of slavery or torture. Every assassination, blown up Tie fighter, stolen set of super weapon plans, and the like is going to cause a lot of conflict for a Force user, and that's something you're going to need to sort out as the GM before the dice start rolling, else the game will turn into a complete train wreck.

No, just no. It is thinking like this that is the reason that people had problems with paladins and alignment. By your thinking every jedi that fought in the Clone Wars should have gone dark.

I'm currently running an Edge of the Empire game with one player using a Force and Destiny career as a starter (he joined the madness a bit late and I gave him the chance to do something awesome).

So far, it hasn't really impacted the game. He's picked up some Obligation and had a few minor changes to his Morality rating, but it's not bad.

There was some vocalization from the party regarding a Rebellion character (or move into the rebellion; the timeline is two years before Star Wars: Rebels, so there's possibility that I'll need Duty), but it's not really that messy to even consider on paper.

We're currently using Duty and Obligation and its worked out just fine.

We actually triggered both last session. Running your character while being Strain Threshold 8, but wound Threshold 18, was interesting. I decided that my character basically just realized that joining the Rebellion is going to cause troubles with the Moff who is blackmailing him.

I'm sure once our force user gets a FaD tree he'll be using morality too. He's been using the dark side a little too much to plop grenades right where we want them.

Another factor to consider is that you may have to play to the Force users re: conflict. Running a mass combat military game could cause any Morality using Force users to plummet to the Dark Side withing a few games, as would certain darker smuggling and underworld elements. This is the same kind of consideration as having a D&D Paladin or other very good character in a group with evil characters or in a campaign with themes of slavery or torture. Every assassination, blown up Tie fighter, stolen set of super weapon plans, and the like is going to cause a lot of conflict for a Force user, and that's something you're going to need to sort out as the GM before the dice start rolling, else the game will turn into a complete train wreck.

No, just no. It is thinking like this that is the reason that people had problems with paladins and alignment. By your thinking every jedi that fought in the Clone Wars should have gone dark.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Example the first. In the Lost Knowledge adventure, the party can basically start the adventure with at least 6 conflict for stealing and condoning the stealing of supplies. 6 conflict for actions that literally amount to nothing of consequence, simply because the represent greed and the easy path. Doesn't that drag "thinking like this" screaming into perspective? Example the second. Murder awards 10 or more conflict, completely at the discretion of the GM. I'm sorry, but the AoR Beginner game spells out the team taking and then killing an entire base full of Imperial prisoners. That kind of thing is going to cause some conflict, whether you like it or not and regardless of the party's intentions. And if you are playing in a group that condones that sort of behaviour, your aspiring Jedi is going to go crashing to the Dark Side because to the war crimes he is allowing to happen. Example the third. Blowing up an imperial super space station the size of a moon, filled with soldiers and staff who can't defend themselves against you? You **** well bet that this is going to give you some conflict, regardless of your intentions. Congratulations Luke, you are a serial killer. And we all know that he fell to the Dark Side more than a few time.

Yeah. There are problems with mixed alignments in games. There are problems with mixed expectations and criminal elements in games that feature characters that aren't supposed to be doing those things. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean those problems aren't real. I'm sorry if I'm the only person who is perceptive enough to see that and willing to warn GMs so they don't burn their own games to the ground by doing this very thing.

Now, if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd have an answer to your Clone Wars comment. But you didn't, so I'll spell it out for you. There are ways around conflict, and that's what I caution GMs to be aware of when blending these elements. Not every fight ends in murder, even if you take your opponent out in that fight. Not every lie is for personal gain. Not every theft is unjustified. Not every war is a blood storm permeated by the Dark Side. Sure, many of these actions can and maybe should cause some conflict, but keeping revenge killings out of it and remembering to act on behalf of the bigger picture should allow the players to avoid the darker urges and the deepest corruption. But if they fail that and indulge in the violence of war, than yes, you can fall to the Dark Side, like many Jedi did in fact do during the Clone War.

I'm preparing to run a game and I'm thinking of doing a crossover for all 3 books.. Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion, and Force and Destiny.

Has anybody run into problems in doing this?

Yes, carrying the books around.

Nothing in the beginner game says you HAVE to kill all the Imperials at Whisper Base. Its most likely you'll have to kill most of them, at least the Storm Troopers anyway. But you could theoretically get some or most of them to surrender.

We did that. It was a surprisingly bloodless take over. We killed 8 troopers and 1 technician got hit by a trooper's missed shot. Everyone else surrendered after we captured the Lt, and made a successful coercion check over the base's PA system.

Then we had a fun 1 week dealing with the aftermath, and holding 60 prisoners with only 5 PCs. We ended up making them watch Rebellion recruitment videos and recruited 2 of the civilian staff over to the Alliance.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Just because it is a problem for you doesn't mean it is in general. Groups can operate in the Fringe and the Rebellion without being cold-blooded murderers or complete arse-wipes.

Now, if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd have an answer to your Clone Wars comment. But you didn't, so I'll spell it out for you. There are ways around conflict, and that's what I caution GMs to be aware of when blending these elements. Not every fight ends in murder, even if you take your opponent out in that fight. Not every lie is for personal gain. Not every theft is unjustified. Not every war is a blood storm permeated by the Dark Side. Sure, many of these actions can and maybe should cause some conflict, but keeping revenge killings out of it and remembering to act on behalf of the bigger picture should allow the players to avoid the darker urges and the deepest corruption. But if they fail that and indulge in the violence of war, than yes, you can fall to the Dark Side, like many Jedi did in fact do during the Clone War.

I did read your comments which inspired mine. By your comments every jedi would be dark for having fought in the war. Now you suddenly want to clarify your position. I'm cool with that. Everything you state here is the exact reason why you can mix the three games. A good GM will always take the bigger picture into consideration. Jerk GMs will try to trap you or hose you. If you're playing with a jerk GM, other than leaving, your options may be limited. But that was true of D&D too. Hopefully people play with others they want to and not with jerks. But it has and always will be a hazard of the hobby.

Honestly the Dark vs Light side is 100% an attitude thing. And reasons.

Why did you kill millions of people?

Dark Side: To increase my power, make my enemies bow before my might, and because one of them killed my puppy!

Light Side; They were wicked and needed to be destroyed to prevent a greater atrocity. They made war upon us, and we defended ourselves.

This conversation reminds me of a GM I know. Great guy but he gives out Dark Side points or the equivalent far too easily IMO. In one case during a Saga one member of the party had been given a baby by a dying woman who was dying from a lightsaber wound. Right after this three Sith show up and demand we hand over the baby. In the course of the battle the Sith my Jedi Knight was fighting was knocked prone. Before his turn came up again my character got his turn so I attacked him and scored a crit killing him. The GM gave me a Dark Side point for attacking while my opponent was prone.

A good GM will consider the conflict in a player action and inform that player as the dice pool is formed. That way you have the social contract to the conflict gained by virtue of the dice being rolled.

I like this suggestion (Made by Sam Stewart, on a Order 66 Podcast) as it means that you and your GM have a chance to get to an agreement before you commit to an action.

BTW: Why don't we get a reduction in the conflict if we do good deeds?

Uh, they're soldiers fighting in a war against you. All but the most staunch pacifists would consider them a legitimate target. And "can't defend themselves against you"? They're in an armored superweapon. They're not prisoners, that ain't anything like a war crime.

The Jedi seek the path of peace, but they're not pacifists. They're warriors with glowing killsticks. A lot of the examples you suggest would be debatable, bit this ain't on the chart.

BTW: Why don't we get a reduction in the conflict if we do good deeds?

Because that would lead to gaming the system. Kill some children here...save some kittens there. Now I am all good.

completely at the discretion of the GM.

And here is the thing. The conflict guidelines are just that, guidelines. A good GM knows his group and uses the system to make an enjoyable game. A bad one doesn't. If your players are not having fun then you are using the system wrong. It was the same for alignment before and morality and conflict here. No game can fix bad GMs.

BTW: Why don't we get a reduction in the conflict if we do good deeds?

Because that would lead to gaming the system. Kill some children here...save some kittens there. Now I am all good.

It's all about how you play it, I guess.

Buffy: A girl is dead because of me.

Spike: And how many people are alive because of you? How many have you saved? One dead girl doesn't tip the scale.

Buffy: That's all it is to you, isn't it? Just another body.

Doesn't the Conflict penalty for killing say it's for "Murder"? I wouldn't call killing Stormtroopers who are firing at you/your comrades/innocent people murder. Now if you start executing prisoners that's a whole other issue.

Take some examples from the movies

Anakin killing Dooku would generate conflict, because his victim was defenseless and could have been taken alive.

Luke blowing up the Death Star and it's crew would not, because the station was basically a genocide machine and billions could have died had it survived. While not everyone on board was truly evil (the Death Star novel is good about that point) the station and it's commanders had to go.

Emotional state is also an issue; killing someone out of anger is way worse than killing someone as the logical solution/last resort to a just end (say, Anakin killing the Tusken Raider village, including non-combatants, VS Obi-Wan killing Darth Maul) like defending yourself or another.

As for stealing? Again there is a difference between stealing intelligence, supplies and plans from a government that routinely murders it's own citizens on a massive scale and stealing for personal gain (stealing for survival would probably be in between). You aren't doing it in to enrich yourself or to hurt others but to help others. Now this makes Force Users in Edge campaigns more vulerable than those in AoR focused games but that makes sense.

And remember; you do get conflict for not helping those in need as well. So if an ISB agent is about to execute someone for tax evasion you have to stop him, with lethal force as a late stage but acceptable solution. If a Star Destroyer is about to glass a city than you have to stop it, with the last resort being destroying it along with the over 37k crew on board.

The only conflict issue I see is the penalty for choosing combat as the first choice, which makes ambushes and direct combat parties a little awkward. The issue is less so for social/stealth groups, if you try to sneak around the Stormtroopers and they spot you and open fire, then you have no choice.

At least; that's how I always approached this as a GM (haven't played F&D yet but I've dealt with paladins and Force users before); those characters do carry Lightsabers and longswords for a reason after all.

BTW: Why don't we get a reduction in the conflict if we do good deeds?

Because that would lead to gaming the system. Kill some children here...save some kittens there. Now I am all good.

How does the current system prevent a player from gaming the system? The only way to prevent that is to remove the system to begin with.

You issue isn't with the rules, but rather what happens if a GM and player don't have the same expectations as to what the game is about. Morality is just one area where a misunderstanding can occur.

Right now, I am running one game and playing in another run by one of my players (there are no other players in common).

We have notably different approaches to morality of Star Wars and the Force but each of us has laid out "how it works in our game" and neither of us have argued while playing* and respected the context we were in.

Personally, I rather like the opportunity. I can tell the more "moral high-road" stories that I enjoy as a GM over here, but also get my hands and soul a little dirty as a PC without derailing the game over there.

*We debate endlessly outside the game, however, with all name calling and mother-insulting being with the utmost respect.

This discussion reminds me a little about some we have had playing Hackmaster with the honor and alignment rules as written.

I just made a giant post about the way I think Morality should work over on the Beta forum and my take on it as a GM. So...I'm just going to copy/paste it here with some minor adjustments... TL;DR: I think the Morality system is great but it requires some work on the part of a good GM to adjust it for your group.